Dragon Age 2

[sorophx]

at least the temple had a real dragon (which I failed to kill with a straight-forward approach...)

[Volourn]

"All of that could have instead been deployed into a Really Big Sword or a 10 x 10 room with an orc in it. And a pie."

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Thorton_AP]

Wich is beside the point, now is'nt it?

 

Unless your point was not related to an incorrect claim that you needed the romance in order to achieve certain objectives, I'd say it was more directly in the way of your point, heading in the completely opposite direction.

[Azdeus]

We are discussing the game from a meta-gaming position.

[Flouride]

Look at the bright side, if DA:O didn't have romances included, perhaps there would have been more Deep Roads or Temple-of-the-Urn.

 

Temple of I'll kill all of you except the leader if I choose the evil path, but he won't mind, he will ally with me anyways.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Flouride

[WorstUsernameEver]

GameInformer Dragon Age II podcast

[Tale]

Triss and the other read head healer chick (funny I can't remember her name either) were 'romances' at least as much as anything BioWare has done

 

well, TW romances were more like bonuses, an extra dialogue line triggered to appear at predefined points, then you'd get a card and that's it, moving on. maybe it's the same in Bio games, but whenever I play them, getting the romance options feels like grinding. Biowarians have gotten quite good at making you believe everything you do in game builds up to a certain point where you finally get your reward. and it makes me sick. in TW you'd storm through locations, humping local beauties occasionally. yhis is how I like my games

You seem to be confusing different things. There were two competing love interests in Witcher that had plot effect. This was in addition to the conquests or whatever you want to call them.

[sorophx]

There were two competing love interests in Witcher that had plot effect.

 

wow, how could I have missed that?..

[Thorton_AP]

We are discussing the game from a meta-gaming position.

 

You said that you can't ignore it. You can, and the game completes just fine. The only way you "couldn't ignore it" is if you were wanting to affect the ending so that it plays out in a prescribed fashion based upon information you received outside the game.

 

Even then, your assertion that it was required for the result you wanted was still incorrect.

[Tigranes]

Semantics again. Sure romances are optional in DAO. The sticking point is that romance is sort of the guy that pops up everywhere you go at a dinner party going HEY LOOK AT ME and handing out business cards with a large portable spray. It's obnoxious.

 

I can get over it if I get the "shut the hell up and never bring this up" option, which, from my memory, you did get in DAO.

[Thorton_AP]

Couldn't you make a similar analogy for almost any game mechanic or story element in almost any game (BioWare or otherwise)?

 

I guess they could allow for a more plausible/subtle way to stop any romance potential, in that things you say and do could ensure an NPC is never attracted to you in the first place.

[Tigranes]

No, you can't, unless you sacrifice any nuances for the sake of making an analogy fit for everything. i.e. you could say it for combat, but you know, combat is recognised as necessary for any and every DAO player, changing things. (Edit: I do see your point though - maybe I feel it's more obnoxious than other things because I don't like it. Maybe a bit of bias.)

 

As I say, I don't mind the STFU option - I don't mind the idea that the romances are there. If it stops spoiling MY dinner party after I say STFU, it's fine. If I end up missing out on a lot of story content because I don't participate in romances, or the romance keeps coming back and asking me if I'm sure, then no, it's annoying.

 

If I was to think about what kind of romance I might actually like in an RPG, I really think they need to cut sex, babies, families, etc out of the equation and start from the basics. The inclusion of sex has meant that in the current 'generation' of romances, all romance is a linear route towards a sexual encounter, after which, for the most part, the romance has concluded. It's just a bloody sidequest: do X, Y, loot=sex, the end. It cheapens the experience, it makes the sex a carnal fan service (and, effectively, softcore porn) rather than part of a romantic encounter. I think if they focus on the small stuff - i.e. two adventurers who grow to like & understand each other, and eventually decide to go romantic - it could be done much better. I don't hold a lot of hope out for this, though, we seem to be going the opposite direction and soon we'll have gay sex, threesome sex, sex with goats, you name it.

[Volourn]

"all romance is a linear route towards a sexual encounter, after which, for the most part, the romance has concluded."

 

Except, that's not true. Morrigan's romance is a prime example of this where the sex itself was not the actual goal since if sex was the goal, the 'romance' could end within seconds of meeting her. Nor does her romance have a happy ending. Same with the elf. (though his can have a happy ending)

 

I'm just wondering if the people who bash romances simply cna't see the big picture becuase when they think romance they think sex. I see romance in rpgs as a way to add story, characters, role-playing, and C&C. Some of BIIO's best C&C is strictly because of romances. That's why they are solid additions to the game.

 

 

"I think if they focus on the small stuff - i.e. two adventurers who grow to like & understand each other, and eventually decide to go romantic - it could be done much better. I don't hold a lot of hope out for this, though, we seem to be going the opposite direction and soon we'll have gay sex, threesome sex, sex with goats, you name it. "

 

Not realistic since every form of entertaiment has romance largely linked with sex. Why? Because, newsflash, that's how it works in real life as well. Long term (or even short term) romance will ALWAYS lead to sex. Just a fact.

 

No need to hide our ehads in the sand and pretend it don't exist. That shows a lack of maturity.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Volourn

[Gromnir]

bio romances is popular. bio romances is borked. given how popular bio romances is, there is no way we will see their removal. heck, we is likely to see bio put more effort into romances rather than less. sadly, bio has hit a development wall regarding romances that they cannot overcome. a tangential side-quest romance is necessarily gonna be rushed, immature and/or a bit silly at times. too much development needs necessarily be crammed into a half-dozen or so dialogue encounters that is kept tangential and insular from the critical path quest. "boy meets girl" becomes "boy beds girl" in six easy steps. there simply ain't enough opportunity to develop a meaningful romance story arc given the tangential and limited nature o' the biowarian implementation. even folks who likes the romances would like to see 'em improved, but the fact o' the matter is that the romances cannot be significant improved if the current model o' implementation is maintained. the bio romances has hit a dead end. the biowarians will try to slap on minor supplementary enhancements (e.g. gifts) but such stuff will not markedly improve the romances as a whole 'cause they does not address the real problem: paucity of development. the romances is popular, so they will not disappear from bio games... but attempts to improve is largely a waste o' resources.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[~Di]

I still miss Kaidan.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2010 by ~Di

[Thorton_AP]

you could say it for combat, but you know, combat is recognised as necessary for any and every DAO player, changing things. (Edit: I do see your point though - maybe I feel it's more obnoxious than other things because I don't like it. Maybe a bit of bias.)

 

See, is it a good thing that combat is recognized as necessary? (not that I ever expect a BioWare game to allow you to play through it without significant combat). In general I'm indifferent to them. If they were gone I wouldn't miss them, but at the same time I have no problems experiencing them in the game and would tend to say I enjoy them for what they are.

 

 

I believe Gromnir kind of hints at the idea that the only real way to improve upon the romances is to make them more integral to the story (and worthy of more resources). But I definitely don't think that this would make people such as yourself happy, as you tend to not like them in general. So it's a dead end, as it were.

 

I do believe that a BioWare game that shipped sans romances would suffer critically and financially.

[Gromnir]

you could say it for combat, but you know, combat is recognised as necessary for any and every DAO player, changing things. (Edit: I do see your point though - maybe I feel it's more obnoxious than other things because I don't like it. Maybe a bit of bias.)

 

 

 

 

I believe Gromnir kind of hints at the idea that the only real way to improve upon the romances is to make them more integral to the story (and worthy of more resources). But I definitely don't think that this would make people such as yourself happy, as you tend to not like them in general. So it's a dead end, as it were.

 

 

is good that you recognize the seeming catch-22. 'course keep in mind that we personally like the option to avoid bio romances 'cause we thinks such fare is poorly developed and not 'cause we is bothered by the notion o' crpg romances in general. am a big fan o' romance in the epics and westerns which so obvious influence bio storytelling. bio romances does little justice to our personal notions o' quality romance.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

"even folks who likes the romances would like to see 'em improved"

 

This comments means nothing as this is true for everything.

 

I like DA. It can be improved.

 

I like BG2. It can be improved.

 

I like PST. It can be improved.

 

I like MOTB. It can be improved.

 

I likeNHL 10. It can be improved.

 

 

You see a pattern?

 

So comments like 'even x person who likes y thing would like to see 'em improved' means nothing, and is a completely unhelpful statement.

 

P.S. At least the rest of the post brings up potential decent points.

[Gromnir]

*sigh*

 

your point? we didn't claim that people do not like the bio romances... quite the opposite as we noted that bio romances is popular. try to keep up with the rest of us, eh.

 

the bio romances is not gonna genuine improve. other than the biowarians, we doubt anybody genuine believed that the Gift nonsense improved the da romances... and other than the folks who were frothing over the need for same-sex romance options, we has seen few who would honest say that da romances were "significant improved" compared to the romances from previous bio games. this is the end of the line. ps:t could be improved. motb could be improved. the nhl could SO be improved. sadly, bio romances is not gonna get signifficant better than their current incarnations, and window treatments such as da gifts is wasted effort.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Thorton_AP]

your point? we didn't claim that people do not like the bio romances... quite the opposite as we noted that bio romances is popular. try to keep up with the rest of us, eh.

 

 

Actually I agree with Volourn's point having read it. He didn't say that you were claiming people did not like BioWare's romances... he just said that saying that a group of people would like to see them improved isn't a very telling statement. Which I actually agree with. Even if I really like something, I won't claim that I wouldn't want that something to be improved upon in the next version. If I state I would like to see a feature improved, it doesn't actually say much about how I really feel about the feature. Whether or not I think the feature is good or bad, I'll still want it improved.

 

But yeah, Volourn didn't actually say that you were claiming people don't like the romances.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Tigranes]

See, is it a good thing that combat is recognized as necessary?

 

Not the point. Or do you want to enlarge this into a discussion where we evaluate every gameplay/story component in a BioRPG?

 

I can see what Grommy means by the catch-22, and yeah, I do think that Bio romances will either stay this way, or become even more integral - they'll get better at what they're trying to do now, but it won't make anybody who is disgusted with it any happier. Well, maybe a little, if by virtue of being fleshed out they get a bit less irksome - Morrigan's romance did seem a little better from what little I saw, because it was invested with a narrative of self-examination, etc. as well. its main failing was that it didn't have a lot of time, and had to resort to silly monologues of "oh, I wish I had friends", but that leads back to what I was saying...

[Thorton_AP]

Not the point. Or do you want to enlarge this into a discussion where we evaluate every gameplay/story component in a BioRPG?

 

I'm kind of confused what your original point was then.

[Gromnir]

your point? we didn't claim that people do not like the bio romances... quite the opposite as we noted that bio romances is popular. try to keep up with the rest of us, eh.

 

 

Actually I agree with Volourn's point having read it. He didn't say that you were claiming people did not like BioWare's romances... he just said that saying that a group of people would like to see them improved isn't a very telling statement. Which I actually agree with. Even if I really like something, I won't claim that I wouldn't want that something to be improved upon in the next version. If I state I would like to see a feature improved, it doesn't actually say much about how I really feel about the feature. Whether or not I think the feature is good or bad, I'll still want it improved.

 

But yeah, Volourn didn't actually say that you were claiming people don't like the romances.

 

 

 

that is why it is so damned ridiculous to quote a single line and pretend likes it is an entire post. don't be like vol. we didn't act as if it were some kinda epiphany moment to observe that people wants the romances to improve, did we? again, we ain't complaining about the inclusion o' romances. they are popular and there is no way bio will remove at this point. nevertheless, ADDITIONAL attempts to alter or improve the romances w/o making fundamental changes is gonna be largely impotent. current bio romances cannot improve. is hardly a pointless observation if people is considering ways to fix or improve romances, now is it?

 

bah.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 29, 2010 by Gromnir

[Nepenthe]

*sigh*

 

your point? we didn't claim that people do not like the bio romances... quite the opposite as we noted that bio romances is popular. try to keep up with the rest of us, eh.

 

the bio romances is not gonna genuine improve. other than the biowarians, we doubt anybody genuine believed that the Gift nonsense improved the da romances... and other than the folks who were frothing over the need for same-sex romance options, we has seen few who would honest say that da romances were "significant improved" compared to the romances from previous bio games. this is the end of the line. ps:t could be improved. motb could be improved. the nhl could SO be improved. sadly, bio romances is not gonna get signifficant better than their current incarnations, and window treatments such as da gifts is wasted effort.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I definitely agree with Gromnir here. Of course, I can go on record saying that IMHO at least Viconia's and Bastila's romances were pretty good. The DAO romances not so much.

[Niten_Ryu]

If I was to think about what kind of romance I might actually like in an RPG, I really think they need to cut sex, babies, families, etc out of the equation and start from the basics. The inclusion of sex has meant that in the current 'generation' of romances, all romance is a linear route towards a sexual encounter, after which, for the most part, the romance has concluded.

 

I'd say they don't need to cut sex, babies and families. They need to cut the "romance" part. Well, maybe not cut down complitely as romances are very popular among the Bioare fans but... Heroes of these CRPGs are prime alpha males (or females). GTA San Andreas and GTA4 get this. The Witcher get it. Bioware don't, as you end up chasing some tail untill the end of the game like in some pathetic harlequins books.

 

Let the "hero" have his legion of the bastards or force him into loveless shotgun wedding (if the daddy is more powerful then the player character). I'd take that over cheesy romance